correct way to pedal

[Boeing]

How could you when you are no wiser than they are. Commonsense and innovation is the name of the game. In almost 100 years of competitive cycling no coach or researcher looked at a TT rider and thought "Man, should sort out the aerodynamic hand/arm position of that rider". But for triathletes ye would still be using low profile unaerodynamic shoulder width bars.

key words.".No wiser than they are"

 

[oldborn]

Personal lunacy or financial interest.

Sure you fit in both categories

Hey, what i have been told you jerk, work on that alactic power idiot! I am coach here, I and only i, understand it. I am the best coach in NZ in last 2000 years or so!!

Relax Fergie, life is too short to waste it on absolute ideas, if so take a trip in Vatican those guys are dealing with truth and Dogma.

Cheers!

 

[mherm79]

It is not performance I intend to demonstrate, it is the graph which should accurately display where and how torque is applied around the pedalling circle.

is your assumption that torque is the only variable that determines efficiency?

what is your definition of efficiency?

is power, HR or HR %, distance and environmental conditions variables?

for me, i mash when i sprint for power, spin at a low speed when i want to recover, spin at a high speed for cardio benefit, and aim for smooth circles when cruising btwn 60 - 95rpm depending on my goals at the time

 

[coapman]

is your assumption that torque is the only variable that determines efficiency?

what is your definition of efficiency?

is power, HR or HR %, distance and environmental conditions variables?

for me, i mash when i sprint for power, spin at a low speed when i want to recover, spin at a high speed for cardio benefit, and aim for smooth circles when cruising btwn 60 - 95rpm depending on my goals at the time

I keep clear of efficiency discussions. The only efficiency I am interested in is pedal stroke efficiency and I would describe that as TOTAL TORQUE PRODUCED PER PEDAL STROKE / TOTAL FORCE APPLIED PER PEDAL STROKE and here I believe tangential effect determines both the torque and the efficiency.

 

[CoachFergie]

You be sure to let us know when there is a new way of pedalling that increases any measures relevant to cycling performance Noel.

 

[coapman]

You be sure to let us know when there is a new way of pedalling that increases any measures relevant to cycling performance Noel.

It seems to me you are finding it impossible to understand anything that is not in your coaching manual. By maximal torque I mean maximal pedal force with 100 % tangential effect. FACT: 'While your legs must idle through the dead spot (11-1 o'c) 180 times per minute, my legs are applying additional maximal torque' and that's only part of what this technique has to offer. As for performance improvement, the only question to be answered here is 'by how much'.

 

[CoachFergie]

It seems to me you are finding it impossible to understand anything that is not in your coaching manual. By maximal torque I mean maximal pedal force with 100 % tangential effect. FACT: 'While your legs must idle through the dead spot (11-1 o'c) 180 times per minute, my legs are applying additional maximal torque' and that's only part of what this technique has to offer. As for performance improvement, the only question to be answered here is 'by how much'.

One thing that isn't in the manual is having to wade through every plonkers half baked scheme to reinvent the wheel.

This would be easily measured with a power meter.

 

[JA.Tri]

Measurement by Power meter seems a fair thing.

More difficult to resolve and far more difficult to measure are factors such as long term recovery and injury/disease onset and incidence.

By the sounds of the debate going on, will be some time before the primary contention is resolved to anyone's satisfaction (and far longer for any indication on the latter issues).

Back to the original post...I suspect that the OP is seeking a more immediate answer (if they haven't lost interest already).

Unfortunately I have nothing to offer on that...sorry.

 

[overgeared]

pedalling is like breathing, you have to do it so often and for so long that even with the best will in the world a rider simply cannot maintain any kind of deliberate focus on it. i.e. even if we could establish some theoretically correct way to pedal it's unlikely anybody could implement it 90 times a minute for hours and hours.

gear selection is a different matter because it's a concious decision made less frequently. riders should concentrate on maintaining sensible cadence and the legs will take care of the rest.

 

[BroDeal]

By the sounds of the debate going on, will be some time before the primary contention is resolved to anyone's satisfaction (and far longer for any indication on the latter issues).

There really is not a debate. There is just the ravings of a couple of crackpots.

 

[coapman]

How do you know what Anquetil's force application through the pedal stroke was?

It was said in many books that Anquetil was capable of generating much more unexplained torque than any other rider. After some experimenting I discovered that it was possible to generate more torque across the top than in the mashing downstroke, I was then satisfied that I had got the explanation but not certain. It was only when I got the video ' The Mysterious Cycling Champion' with some of his time trialling pedalling footage that I was convinced. In one decisive time trial against a flying mashing Poulidor, in the last mile and a half he gained 21 seconds and in this excellent footage as he is pedalling at peak power output, it's obvious that he is not a masher, resistance is coming from the arms, the power is coming from over the top and even more important, there is no dead spot area in his pedalling, identical to the technique I am using.

 

[Tapeworm]

But how do you know his torque was higher? Was there some rudimentary torque measuring device I am not aware of?

 

[Boeing]

the only relevance I can bring to any form of "new" is riding a 1x9 or 1x10. entering technical sections on a mountain bike or cross bike 1x setup I have had to alter when and how I back pedal when trying to establish better cornering position. often chain line is off in the lower and upper end and chain can throw. Or if you run a chain guide it can jamb in the guide


I am not sure how one measures all this other stuff we throw around here. other than self discovery and trial and error

just to share: I have been running SS or 1x9 XC for about 6 months now. I quit the big travel DH free ride thing because of all the pain...so I have a lot of parts laying around.

I couldn't find shoes once before a ride so I thew on a set of old platforms with tall sharp pins and a pair of sticky sole DH shoes. The old Intense shoes you may know

any ways SS with out SPDs hhmmm

The pins kept the foot on the pedal pretty well with the soft rubber sole just like they do for
DH but that is going down not up. Climbing I had to focus on pulling through and discovered I was likely pulling up clipped in before.

Long and short of it is my efficiency is better now and I use a lot more calf and ankle extension that I am aware of anyway

It has translated well to my road spinning and I at least feel like I am a faster and more efficient rider

 

[CoachFergie]

It was said in many books that Anquetil was capable of generating much more unexplained torque than any other rider. After some experimenting I discovered that it was possible to generate more torque across the top than in the mashing downstroke, I was then satisfied that I had got the explanation but not certain. It was only when I got the video ' The Mysterious Cycling Champion' with some of his time trialling pedalling footage that I was convinced. In one decisive time trial against a flying mashing Poulidor, in the last mile and a half he gained 21 seconds and in this excellent footage as he is pedalling at peak power output, it's obvious that he is not a masher, resistance is coming from the arms, the power is coming from over the top and even more important, there is no dead spot area in his pedalling, identical to the technique I am using.

Data please or this is just a wild arsed guess.

 

[Boeing]

There really is not a debate. There is just the ravings of a couple of crackpots.

post of the year so far

 

[Boeing]

Data please or this is just a wild arsed guess.

A little Pot and Kettle here on an evening???? ya right?

 

[CoachFergie]

A little Pot and Kettle here on an evening???? ya right?

You want data, I got data, where would you like me to start?

 

[coapman]

Data please or this is just a wild arsed guess.

Data, data, What did all the world coaches in that sport do with their data and coaching manuals on the day after Fosbury won his olympic gold.
Commonsense is all that's required. Except for J. Bobet not one cycling expert or coach was capable of detecting that Anquetil's pedalling had no dead spot area. He wrote " Although I studied literature, I am fascinated by maths and physics. Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion, his system was totally adapted to it. I think that it was to do with his pedalling style, his muscles and the smooth constant way that they delivered power to his bike. More commonsense, the more tangentially you direct the force at the crank, the less of that force and energy will be wasted. On Anq's pedalling B. Hinault wrote,"while his style was certainly inborn, he cleaned it up and perfected it, searching for his own best way to put the greatest possible tangential force on the crank." I have already said that as you are forced to push your idling leg over 12 o'c, wasting energy in the process, I can apply maximal torque to the crank at 12. In addition as you apply force to the pedal at 1 o'c, only one fifth of that force is converted into torque, wasting more energy while I can apply maximal torque here also, and in an hour's TT cycling your losses and my gains will occur 10800 times. Back to your comment, which part do you consider to be a wild arsed guess.

 

[CoachFergie]

Data, data, What did all the world coaches in that sport do with their data and coaching manuals on the day after Fosbury won his olympic gold.
Commonsense is all that's required. Except for J. Bobet not one cycling expert or coach was capable of detecting that Anquetil's pedalling had no dead spot area. He wrote " Although I studied literature, I am fascinated by maths and physics. Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion, his system was totally adapted to it. I think that it was to do with his pedalling style, his muscles and the smooth constant way that they delivered power to his bike. More commonsense, the more tangentially you direct the force at the crank, the less of that force and energy will be wasted. On Anq's pedalling B. Hinault wrote,"while his style was certainly inborn, he cleaned it up and perfected it, searching for his own best way to put the greatest possible tangential force on the crank." I have already said that as you are forced to push your idling leg over 12 o'c, wasting energy in the process, I can apply maximal torque to the crank at 12. In addition as you apply force to the pedal at 1 o'c, only one fifth of that force is converted into torque, wasting more energy while I can apply maximal torque here also, and in an hour's TT cycling your losses and my gains will occur 10800 times. Back to your comment, which part do you consider to be a wild arsed guess.

So no data then. Thought as much.

 

[Tapeworm]

...I can apply maximal torque to the crank at 12. In addition as you apply force to the pedal at 1 o'c...Back to your comment, which part do you consider to be a wild arsed guess.

Well unless you have some way of quantifying that you are applying "maximal torque" at the 12 o'clock I would say most of it is a wild arsed guess. Or does it just feel like you are doing it?

 

[CoachFergie]

The spirit of Jacques tells him it does.

Gotta love "belief based practice".

 

[JayKosta]

I doubt that it is possible to produce
"maximal torque to the crank at 12",
but a pedal style that always applies its force in a positive tangential direction will continuously assist in forward motion. Any pedal motion or force that is not 'positive tangential' is wasting energy and is inefficient.

It is not necessary for the tangential force to always be adding torque to the crank (although that is probably good). In some spots around the rotation, it is probably the case that just 'moving through' the position without wasting energy and without applying 'negative force' (drag) is sufficient.

A question .... (I don't know the answer)
What type of data do power meters provide?
- torque on the BB spindle
- 'force vector' pressure on the pedal / pedals

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[TexPat]

I doubt that it is possible to produce
"maximal torque to the crank at 12",
but a pedal style that always applies its force in a positive tangential direction will continuously assist in forward motion. Any pedal motion or force that is not 'positive tangential' is wasting energy and is inefficient.

It is not necessary for the tangential force to always be adding torque to the crank (although that is probably good). In some spots around the rotation, it is probably the case that just 'moving through' the position without wasting energy and without applying 'negative force' (drag) is sufficient.

A question .... (I don't know the answer)
What type of data do power meters provide?
- torque on the BB spindle
- 'force vector' pressure on the pedal / pedals

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Reckon Mr Coapman rides a recumbent, where maximal torque is at 12 o'clock. Or maybe it's 11:00.

 

[M Sport]

Reckon Mr Coapman rides a recumbent, where maximal torque is at 12 o'clock. Or maybe it's 11:00.

My take on that smoke and mirrors explanation was that he had to be riding a recumbent as well. It's the only way you could get maximum torque at 12 o'clock.

Either that he was doing his hour ftp test around mid day?

 

[coapman]

I doubt that it is possible to produce
"maximal torque to the crank at 12",
but a pedal style that always applies its force in a positive tangential direction will continuously assist in forward motion. Any pedal motion or force that is not 'positive tangential' is wasting energy and is inefficient.

It is not necessary for the tangential force to always be adding torque to the crank (although that is probably good). In some spots around the rotation, it is probably the case that just 'moving through' the position without wasting energy and without applying 'negative force' (drag) is sufficient.

A question .... (I don't know the answer)
What type of data do power meters provide?
- torque on the BB spindle
- 'force vector' pressure on the pedal / pedals

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

You are correct, it is impossible but only when you use the natural style which generates the power in mainly the thigh muscles and applies torque from the knee, using bodyweight for resistance; your range of main torque application is very restricted and confined to the 2-4 o'c sector. When circular pedallers attempt to apply a forward torque from the knee at 12, all they are doing is wasting energy. But what cycling experts do not realize is that an even more powerful combination of torque generating muscles have been lying idle down through the years, they produce forward torque. In this muscle combination the power is generated mainly in the GM muscles and the torque is applied from the ankles, leaving the knees and lower back/core muscles stress free, resistance is supplied by the arms. With this method the range of main torque application is extended to 90 deg. (11-2 o'c). For the perfect TT stroke, all that's required is the merging of both ankle and knee torque. Regarding PM's all types are available, in the one I am waiting on, I believe the force/vector readings will be taken from the cleats.